Scheduled Hearing Tomorrow is Cancelled (25)
I have been contacted by a number of people who indicated that they are planning on attending my hearing which was originally scheduled for tomorrow, September 20th 2007 in Brooklyn, Ohio Mayors court. I just received confirmation a few minutes ago that there will be no hearing tomorrow. I am very appreciative of the people that wanted to be there, and I’m very sorry for the last minute notice. Please do not show up at the municipal building as I will not be there. I’m sorry to be brief in my posting but I can’t say much more at the moment. I will provide more information at a later time.
-Michael
September 21, 2007 @ 12:26AM EST Update: Please read my Thursday update before coming to any conclusions about what you read below. I don’t mind hate mail, but I’d prefer it to be well informed hate mail. 
looks like The Plain Dealer can say more though…
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdworld/2007/09/brooklyn_drops_charges_against.html
Why do you perpetuate this selfish act as being the hero of personal rights? You first mention your Dad and “his wife” along with little sisters birthday. Obviously that has to do with the story or you wouldn’t mention it. This is all about you getting the attention from your family, and YES it was about screwing up your sisters birthday. You only perpetuate this to draw attention away from that fact.
Grow up.
Hey, if your story is real and you end up winning a lawsuit, you plan on donating ALL the proceeds to the ACLU correct? Because that would only be the right thing to do in your situation.
Michael –I find the haters out there distressing. I understand that you don\’t and that you allow them to post so that the rest of us can understand how real the erosion of liberties is. I appreciate your strength of will here.
I completely support your actions, and I have no doubt that you will prevail in court. Of course that won\’t silence your nay sayers. And by opening yourself up to he abuse from the Bob Johnson\’s of the world, you are again demonstrating the strength of your character and convictions.
How can the BJs of the world not understand that there are people who feel strongly about privacy? I just wantd your other readers to know that there are indeed many people who applaud you and your stance on this issue.
Keep it up!
I have been following this thing ever since I saw it on slashdot… and what strikes me is that people like \
Sorry for the repost, something happened in the post above…
I have been following this thing ever since I saw it on slashdot… and what strikes me is that people like “Bob” above can think that this is a bad thing while I am sure he is proud of living in “the land of the free, home of the brave”.
I am not a US citizen (but still happy) but I have lived in the US of A, and I have to say that it is not at all land of the free. If you think you are free; first of all you have no idea of what freedom is, and second of all you should be applauding fighters of freedom, such as Michael here.
Just out of curiosity I went to the police in my backwards country and asked them if I had to show any ID or such upon request from the police - and lo and behold I do not (well, there are times when you might be required, as I am sure there is in Ohio as well - but in generally not.).
For those of you who think this is nothing… I was about to write what happened in Germany about 1937 but since too many people will think that I am comparing the US of A with…. well, I am not and to avoid tons of flaming I will not write even the word here.
Let the man fight for his (and yours) rights - not fighting this would be stupid. I remember having to show my receipts while I was living in the US - but not being a citizen I did not dare to object… should a clerk ask for the same thing of me in my country (that I deem freer) there is no chance in hell I would show it, nor would I even wait for them to call the police.
People in the land of the free, home of the brave. Start acting free and brave! Not many of you are…
And just for the record - I am not anti-american, just trying to bash some sense into you…
You freakin coward,
you better turn over those donation to the ACLU right now.
All your childish BS under the pretense that you were going to stand up and fight, now you sit down and do nothing, don’t even bother to show up at court. COWARDICE of the worst kind.
Here\’s a link and the text of the latest article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer from today, 9/20/07:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2
Circuit City shopper, city of Brooklyn resolve dispute over arrest
Brooklyn prosecutor drops charge
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Michael Sangiacomo
Plain Dealer Reporter
Brooklyn - The city prosecutor on Wednesday dropped a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official police business against Circuit City shopper Michael Righi.
And Righi agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver\’s license outside the store Sept. 1.
The agreement Wednesday brought to a close the case of the Pittsburgh man, who refused to produce a receipt to a store employee after leaving the store.
Righi told the store employee he had no right to question him. After some argument, Righi called police and complained that store personnel were detaining him illegally.
When a police officer arrived, Righi refused to hand over his driver\’s license and the officer arrested him. Righi maintained police had no right to ask for a driver\’s license from a person not driving a car, a contention backed up later by legal experts.
Righi\’s attorney, Ian Friedman, said Wednesday that the Brooklyn prosecutor dropped the charge after Friedman agreed that police did nothing wrong.
The incident drew attention when Righi posted his account of the incident on his blog and was interviewed on a local radio station.
Righi raised questions about whether store employees have the authority to search customers\’ parcels.
Legal experts agreed that customers can refuse to allow store employees to search their bags. But if the shopper belongs to a wholesale club with rules allowing searches, the shopper must comply. And if store workers suspect shoplifting has occurred, they can only detain - not search - a customer until police arrive, legal experts said.
Righi was charged with a second-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment of 90 days in jail and a $750 fine.
Friedman said the city and Righi only resolved the criminal charge, not the issue of consumer rights.
\
People, please.
Hold your judgments until after we find out what\’s going on. All he\’s said is that there won\’t be a hearing, and there are many possible reasons for that. Jumping to conclusions about it isn\’t useful.
News update on the story from The Plain Dealer:
” Brooklyn - The city prosecutor on Wednesday dropped a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official police business against Circuit City shopper Michael Righi. And Righi agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver’s license outside the store Sept. 1. ”
We the public clearly don’t know the details, but does this mean that Michael Righi and/or attorney Ian Friedman now believe it is acceptable for law enforcement in Ohio or elsewhere the USA to demand identification papers from someone standing on a public sidewalk? Hopefully there will be some sort of statement addressing this issue.
This outcome has the potential to set a very dark precedent for what is left of our freedom and anonymity, as with this settlement there seems to be little disincentive to any police department establishing a mandatory ID checkpoint (complete with check of the error-filled no-fly list) in the center of town.
It is nice to hear that the charges are dropped, but it is distressing to hear that he apparently agreed not to pursue a wrongful arrest charge.
I support what you are doing. Too many americans too readily give up their freedoms and those takening it continue to push the line farther away from our constitution.
You, sir, are a coward. You opposed illegal arrest and then gave up agreeing “that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting [you] after [you] refused to show [your] driver’s license.”
I sincerely hope that you donate 100% of the money sent to you for legal costs to the ACLU. If you do not I will have truly lost all respect for you.
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2
I guess you are all talk after all. How disappointing.
There is a long distance between failing to press charges and being a coward.
He mentioned he had received a few thousand dollars in donations and that he had already spent $7,500 just defending himself.
Attorney fees in pressing the wrongful arrest charge could easily range $20,000 or higher. If his lawyer advised him of this and the state said that they would drop the obstruction charge if he did not press charges, he might have felt the financial necessity of taking that route.
Note I’m still distressed at it, but I don’t think calling him a coward without all the facts or his side of the story is any more fair than what happened to him.
I agree with Daniel. Defending yourself in court is one thing, and I would use any resources I have to defend myself. But pressing charges is completely different. The legal process is an expensive one and something that should not be taken lightly. America is too sue happy over stupid things. He should by all means protect himself but he shouldnt sue the police for being stupid.
What I would like to see is a statement of some sort come out as most the time I dont believe what the papers say because they usually twist the facts.
Jason,
Maybe he shouldn’t sue the police, but he certainly shouldn’t agree that the police did nothing wrong when the legal analyst believe they did.
Just like I thought, your stupid, immature actions were nothing more than an attempt to make some quick cash. You are truly a pathetic individual wasting time and resources that others truly need. All this could have been prevented by spending 5 seconds of your time to follow the store policies.
Here is the link to the story of how Righi publicly stated that now he believes that the police did nothing wrong in arresting him for not showing his ID:
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2
This is simply astonishing! Righi rants on and on about how this police officer broke the law by falsely arresting him, publicly asks for donations, states his cases all over the press, etc. Now, he has the audacity to simply change his mind 100% and state that the police officer did nothing wrong?
Mr. Righi,
I must say that right now you appear to me very much as a coward. I understand that this might not be the case. Therefore, I demand from you an explanation as to what you have done and what the current status is. If you do not have a good explanation for this, you should be embarrassed of yourself and publicly apologize for lying to the public and falsely generating supports for your own use.
What really is sad, is at the end of the newspaper article, they state the Mr. Righi would not return a call for a comment to the paper.
The conclusion of the article is that Michael was wrong and deserved to be arrested and the police were right.
I agree with Daniel\’s assesment, only Mr.Righi knows the financial resources available to him, very premature to rush to judegement.
I would guess (and it\’s just that), that a smart attorney would focus on the party with deeper pockets (Circuit City) whom is proabably eager to make some type of settlement.
Thomas you are a tool. Since you insist on following store policy I cant wait until they implement a full cavity search on patrons exiting the premise. Then lets see you post about following store policies.
Let\’s not jump too conclusions so quickly. Please wait until you know all the facts before you accuse Michael of being a coward. If more people like him took the time to say \
Just a FYI that I just sent this email to the Plain Dealer reporter (msangiacomo@plaind.com, 216-999-4890) who reported on the story:
Have you been following the Michael Righi case at all?
http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/19/scheduled-hearing-tomorrow-is-cancelled/
Either your story regarding Michael Righi and Circuit City is entirely wrong, or this guy is a con-artist crook.
He has even raised several thousand dollars of donation money to pay for his legal fees.
Now, he has suddenly changed his mind that he was not falsely arrested?
Please look into this issue a little deeper and determine if he is committing fraud or if your story is entirely incorrect.
My post got eaten….
Let’s not jump too conclusions so quickly. Please wait until you know all the facts before you accuse Michael of being a coward. If more people like him took the time to say “NO” once in a while your country wouldn’t be in the terrible state it is now.
I just found this story through one of my friends blogs and I have to say that it is quite interesting.
Its good to see that someone is standing up for what they believe in in this country of ours. I too have walked passed these people knowing that I don\’t need to show them anything.
All these negative comments just seem to be too distressing. Sure it would have been easier to take 10 seconds to show them your receipt but thats not the point. Once you realize the point will you see whats really going on here.
I know that CC has deeper pockets and that is probably a more worthwhile suit as far as a cash payout goes. However, I think it is more important to stop the police from wrongful arrest. By saying that they were not wrong in arresting him he completely backed down and gave up on the more important issue. I know that his financial situation is not something we know anything about but considering the vehemence with which he originally expressed his intention to fight this I expected more than giving up. How can he claim to be a man of principle (as he does in his blog) and then back down like this?
Sartoris:
That is the same question that I am posing. I think that it\’s essential that Righi make a statement regarding this question, because it is a major one at this point. Silence hardly seems appropriate at this time.
Hmmm, $7,500 in legal fees without there ever being a hearing? Doubtful…
Or it\’s possible that his lawyer explained to him the fascist leanings of the US Court System presently. Since they recently upheld the right to arrest someone for not providing ID when requested ( see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada) his lawyer would have been smart to get what he could for his client. It\’s a scary new world we live in….
What did his lawyer get for him? A drop of charges that shouldn\’t have been pressed to begin with? (Nevada state law differs from that of Ohio in that Ohio\’s state law explicitly states that a DL cannot be required of any individual not operating a motor vehicle)
It may be that his lawyer pointed out a flaw in his behavior that allowed further searches/demands.
The allowing the bag to be searched may have been the threshold of further allowed behavior on the point of the officer.
At least suspend judgment until he can relate the entire story.
But, the haters really aren\’t interested in the real story, now, are they?
I agree with you. However, a couple of caveats. IIRC, the statute doesn’t explicity deny the right to ask for a drivers license. It says that you don’t have to answer anything beyond your name and address or something similar. There are a dozen different ways the court could allow for a drivers license to be required. When you look through the dissenting opinion of the Hiibel case you’ll see that previous case law stated that “…the detainee is not obliged to respond.” If they’re willing to throw out 20 years of precedent stating that you don’t have to respond _AT_ _ALL_ do you think they were going to care whether or not to provide a drivers license? Just my $.02.
Full story link: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1190278957130100.xml&coll=2
The Hiibel case had nothing to do with being charged for refusing to show id. Hiibel refused to identify himself at all.
I’m not saying the Hiibel case wasn’t handled poorly, I’m just saying it bears no relation to this one, because Righi was completely willing to identify himself, just not to show id.
Poorly is an understatement. But you\’re taking me to literally. In that case they wrote that they understood that the officer was demanding a drivers license and failed to voice any disapproval. They recognized that 20 years of precedent was that a detainee didn\’t have to answer _ANY_ questions. The only suspicion they had against Hiibel was that he was standing near a van of the same color as the one they were looking for. And they still ruled against him. In today\’s enviroment even though I agree that the existing law was on his side I don\’t know that he would have won was all I was saying.
Lot\’s of people jumping to conclusions here after only hearing one side of the story. It is entirely possible that Righi had a poor attitude toward the police, said something he shouldn\’t have (saying \
Nice of you to give a quick note. From what I have read from before, some stores are more nice (ie they don\\\’t force their security measure) than others, and one person even related a story where an employee admitted they can\\\’t stop people from walking out of the building without being checked.
I\\\’m still on the fence about the actual security practice of places like Best Buy, but I am rooting for you to win against the police officer who arrested you for not having a driver\\\’s license.
I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED YOU LET THEM OFF THE HOOK!
Circuit City shopper, city of Brooklyn resolve dispute over arrest
Brooklyn prosecutor drops charge
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Michael Sangiacomo
Plain Dealer Reporter
Brooklyn - The city prosecutor on Wednesday dropped a misdemeanor charge of obstructing official police business against Circuit City shopper Michael Righi.
And Righi agreed that a police officer did nothing wrong in arresting him after he refused to show his driver’s license outside the store Sept. 1.
The agreement Wednesday brought to a close the case of the Pittsburgh man, who refused to produce a receipt to a store employee after leaving the store.
Righi told the store employee he had no right to question him. After some argument, Righi called police and complained that store personnel were detaining him illegally.
When a police officer arrived, Righi refused to hand over his driver’s license and the officer arrested him. Righi maintained police had no right to ask for a driver’s license from a person not driving a car, a contention backed up later by legal experts.
Righi’s attorney, Ian Friedman, said Wednesday that the Brooklyn prosecutor dropped the charge after Friedman agreed that police did nothing wrong.
The incident drew attention when Righi posted his account of the incident on his blog and was interviewed on a local radio station.
Righi raised questions about whether store employees have the authority to search customers’ parcels.
Legal experts agreed that customers can refuse to allow store employees to search their bags. But if the shopper belongs to a wholesale club with rules allowing searches, the shopper must comply. And if store workers suspect shoplifting has occurred, they can only detain - not search - a customer until police arrive, legal experts said.
Righi was charged with a second-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum punishment of 90 days in jail and a $750 fine.
Friedman said the city and Righi only resolved the criminal charge, not the issue of consumer rights.
“We did not get into that,” he said.
Asked why Righi abandoned his fight, Friedman said, “I think that time passed since the incident and all parties felt this was a reasonable way to end it. Righi is not charged with a crime and the city is happy. It’s over. Otherwise, it would have been a long, drawn-out process that could have been costly.”
Circuit City representatives, Brooklyn Law Director Hillary Goldberg and Righi did not return telephone calls Wednesday.
So how do I get my PayPal donation back?
If there are no other facts forthcoming, and considering the details as posed by Powlette above, and the fact that many people likely gave their donations on the premise that the case would be fought, not settled so early, I would say that the ethical thing to do would be to either return the donations, or donate the whole sum to the ACLU.
By vowing to fight the charges and backing down you\’ve done a lot more damage to your rights than you would have if you had simply shown the officer your ID. I hope you have the integrity to return the donations.
Suckers. Like I said, the only thing you know from this website is what Righi wanted you to know. Betcha there was a lot more to the confrontation with the police than he lets on.
If you made your donation via PayPal you can make a claim through their site to get your donation back. I don\\\’t know the exact details but I know lots of people that have done it.
Your a coward!
GC:
None of the articles say anything about there being more to the story. And if there were then it makes it even more unfortunate that he let them off the hook. It’s regrettable that your previous comment got cut off. I’m very curious to hear you rationalize how something he said got him arrested and have it be righteous. Perhaps you’re right and he did get snotty when the cop demanded his license since most involved say he had not right to do so. If that factored in to his arrest it’s even more shameful that he let them off the hook as at that point he was not only a victim of an unreasonable search but malicious prosecution.
An.Co.
My post that got cut off was mainly to point out that the only info available to form an opinion on was that released by Righi and his attorney. No police report, no statements from other witnesses (of which there probably were since it happened outside a large retail store), etc. Nothing but what was selected to be released. Righi is not going to publish anything online that would show himself to be anything less than totally innocent. Why would he? After all, he wants public opinion in his favor, right? If he was so sure that the police were wrong he would have followed through with his crusade and filed a lawsuit against the police. The police had very little to gain by following through, a couple hundred bucks at most, so it was in their best interest to come to an agreement with them.
That is why, to me, this whole thing smells very, very fishy.
If you remember, he was not cited for failing to produce an ID. He was cited under a local statute for interfering with an officer in his duties. That could mean a whole lot of things Righi could have done and not disclosed to the public. Cursing at the officer is just one, interupting the officer while he is trying to take a statement from someone else is another, see my point? Righi would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by disclosing something like that.
First thing to say - I PayPaled some money for legal costs. I don\’t regret it (yet).
It was the attitude of the CC employees much more that the cop that deserves punishement. Fighting the misdemeanor charge could easily cost much more than any donations were going to bring in; he had a tough choice, and I can\’t blame him for reaching the decision he did.
Provided he keeps up the suit against Circuit City I\’m happy that the money I sent is being used properly. If he wins, I expect him to donate at least the amount of all donations to the ACLU.
To those of you who made donations and now want your money back you people are disgusting. A man stood up for his legal rights, and you supported him, but because he didn\’t take the action you wanted you now want your money back?
You helped a man out, you don\’t know the full story, yet you are quick to jump to accusations of fraud and deceit.
To those who made donations, you got what you gave, a chance to help someone out who needed it. To those who want their money back, you got what you deserve as well, nothing…. because you missed the whole point to begin with.
I agree with Brian, who posted in your “Success” entry and closed his comment with “What a downer.”
This truly is “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for those who can afford it,” be it monetary resources or the extreme emotional burden it puts on anyone involved.
Most of us are raised to blindly follow the instructions of who we perceive as authority — often without thinking twice. I applaud you for standing up, and respect your, well, what I consider admission of defeat, to put your family first. You certainly didn’t win in my eyes. But you didn’t lose due to being wrong or having broken the law. You’re simply another victim of the system meant to protect those who enforce it.
I’ve lived in the Cleveland area (Parma, Bedford, Elyria) and I have both observed and experienced abuse by police officers.
The next time the Plain Dealer harasses me with their telemarketing calls, I’ll have a solid response. That kind of reporting just ticks me off. On the other hand, if you carefully read their statement that “[…] Brooklyn prosecutor dropped the charge after Friedman agreed that police did nothing wrong,” it doesn’t really make sense now, does it? I’d be interested to find out if there’s some sort of relationship between the reporter and the officer / police dept.
Anyway Michael, thank you for trying. What a downer indeed.
I hope there’s some further action you can take against Circuit City. They probably didn’t learn that what they did was wrong. I’m assuming your ultimate goal is to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again, so I hope you’re keeping Circuit City aware of the outcome.
Man, you gotta learn where to \’plant the flag\’. I\’m all about civil liberties, but I also exercise a considerable amount of common sense, which you apparently failed to do. I\’m going with those who say that you screwed up a family member\’s birthday AND dragged your family through a considerable amount of heartache over a stupid receipt. I go to Home Depot/Circuit City/Staples/Office Max/Fry\’s often enough to know that most of the workers just give a cursory glance at your bag, then scribble some unrecognizable doodle for an initial. Talk about causing drama over nothing. Was all that drama you put your family through really worth it? I could pretty much figure out how that late-night convo with your family member went–I bet they were pretty much saying the same thing I\’m saying. Thank God, for the sake of your family, that you dropped the issue (more or less)!!!
Wow, I never thought my 5 year old would be a lot smarter than a 26 year old. Even he knows how to show a receipt to the checkout person.
What\’s the big deal in showing your ID? Perhaps you should have balanced your indignation with the inconvenience you did to your family.
It must be hard for you to get a job, purchase alcohol, or fly on an airplane because you don\’t want to show your ID.
Perhaps you could apply your energies to real issues as opposed to these make believe crimes against you.
By no means do I consider you a hero. Your actions were selfish and idiotic. Next time simply show the receipt. Our courts are already overloaded as it is. Plus, as a taxpayer, it ticks me off that you’re wasting my money.
Now piss off.
@William: It doesn\’t matter if it\’s showing my receipt, full cavity search, etc. If a store has a policy I don\’t agree with I WON\’T SHOP THERE. They are a private company and can do whatever they want as long as they don\’t break the law (NO, checking a receipt is not breaking the law!).
As a citizen you have a CHOICE to shop elsewhere. If everyone told Circuit City they didn\’t like the receipt check and stopped shopping there, it would change. That\’s a much better solution than tying up emergency services and our legal system with a baseless lawsuit based solely on immature, selfish actions.
Absolutely I could not agree with you more Thomas, and in the case of a wholesale retail store you do give up your right by signing a waiver in order to shop at that retailer. However Circuit City is not a wholesaler like Costco and I have never seen a disclaimer before entering or while inside a Circuit City or a Best Buy for that matter. But this is the fundamental point you miss Thomas, we are (suposed to be) a free people. Our freedom is granted to us by the constitution of the United States. The only recourse we the people have against the government without shedding blood, is by holding them financially responsible when they violate our rights as private citizens. The property Mr. Righi purchased from the store was private property. No one has the right to search that property without A. Reasonable suspicion it is stole or B. a search warrant. That being said you are also not required to show identification when asked for it rather it be a officer of the peace or a private citizen. And whether or not you believe it, civil rights violations are a slippery slope and just as destructive as the complacency and ignorance that you call maturity. Read the history on why we are protected against unlawful searche and seizure, perhaps then you will understand why Mr. Righi did what he did.
I am glad to see that the charges were finally dropped and I sincerely applaud you for fighting the fight. The big issue here is that if one store starts a practice that violators your civil rights others are likely to follow. I have always made a point of not showing my receipt and questioning these types of idiotic policies.
Many times I have asked why the stores door guards need to see my receipt. They have usually seen me pay and walk from the cash register to the door. Most of the time I get a dumb answer like - I need to make sure that you are charged the correct price and get everything you paid for. It is almost fun to pull an item out of my bag, cover up the price and ask - Ok, what is the correct price for this item? They usually give up in frustration and walk away. Most all of these stores have video surveillance to cut down on inventory shrinkage anyway.
Recently I noticed that a local pharmacy (Longs Drugs) had posted signs that they utilized Video and Audio surveillance in the store. I asked to talk to the manager and asked about the audio surveillance. He was not able to provide a decent explanation about where the audio surveillance was taking place, who had access to the recordings, how long they kept them and how they safeguard any of my personal information. Obviously it is a concern if I am talking with the pharmacist, giving my social security number and medical information, etc.. The real problem is that if we do not fight situations like this other stores will develop the same policies. If every drugstore in the neighborhood uses Video and Audio surveillance then you can not simply take your business elsewhere.
I am all for stores being able to control theft but they need to respect the rights of their customers. I do not really have a problem with them using video surveillance but I would like to see laws to control audio surveillance. I would also like to see laws to protect consumer privacy and ensure that any video recordings cannot be used except in the prosecution of a crime.
Again, thanks for standing up for your rights, I know that this must have been very difficult for you and your family to cope with!